Orissa

Cuttak

CC/261/2022

Debasis Sarangi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Officer,Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Behera

03 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

    C.C.No.261/2022

         Debasis Sarangi,

         S/O:Jagabandhu Sarangi,

         At/PO:Dalijoda-Bramhapur,

         P.S:Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack-754028.                              ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

1.       The Authorized Officer,

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

                  2^nd floor,Sadhana House,Behind Mahindra Towers-507

P.B.Marg,Worli Mumbai-400018,Maharashtra.

 

2.       The B.M,Bhubaneswar-CV,

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

First Floor,Unit-1,Nandighosh Arena,

G.A-1,Plot No.1246,P.O:Bhubaneswar,

                   Dist-Khurda-751009

 

3.     B.M,Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

Second Floor, Sumitra Plaza,Arunodaya Nagar,

Near Govt. Bus Stand,Cuttack-75301.                     ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    20.12.2022

Date of Order:  03.06.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :  None.

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

Case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased a passenger vehicle by obtaining finance from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.14,98,000/- on 26.3.2019 which was to be repaid by him @ Rs.34,600/- in 59 number of monthly instalments effective from 5.5.2019 till 5.4.2024.  The said vehicle was registered vide Regd. No.OD-05-AP-9866.  During the Covid-19 period, the vehicle was unable to ply for which the complainant could not pay the instalments and after the restriction of the Covid-19 period was over, he had approached O.Ps No.2 & 3 for re-phasement of his outstanding loan and had made representations to that effect dated 12.92022 and on dated 5.11.2022.  The O.Ps had filed Arbitration case against the complainant at Chennai making a claim of Rs.15,89,162/- and another N.I Act case at Kolkata for dishonour of the cheque bearing No.189398 of Rs.15,74,162/-.  The complainant had sent his reply by speed post in the said Arbitration case and cheque bounce case on 2.12.2022.  According to the complainant, O.P no.3 had taken 11 number of blank cheques from him which he apprehends to have been misused by the O.Ps.  The complainant has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps for enabling the complainant to ply his vehicle and also  to enable him to clear his outstanding dues in re-phasement basis.  He has further claimed from the O.Ps a sum of Rs.17,30,000/- towards cost of the vehicle,  a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- towards expenditure of the vehicle,  another sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further his litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has also filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.      Having not contested this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dated 15.3.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him ?

Point no.ii.

             After going through the available documents on record and perusing the averments as made in the complaint petition, it is noticed that the complainant is well aware of the Arbitration proceeding as well as the cheque bounce case against him initiated by the O.Ps of this case.  Admittedly, the complainant is a defaulter who could not pay the agreed monthly instalments to the O.Ps after obtaining finance from them and also after executing the loan agreement with them.  Any deviation to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as made out here in this case; will definitely entitle the O. Ps to proceed in accordance with law against the complainant who had thereby breached the loan agreement by becoming a defaulter in paying the regular monthly instalments to the O.Ps.  Moreso, this Commission has no authority to direct the O.Ps for re-phasement of the loan of the complainant and since when Arbitration proceeding is going on to which the complainant is well aware of and has submitted his show-cause, it cannot be said here that apprehension of the vehicle of the complainant to be repossessed by the O.Ps and threat to that effect will amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Accordingly, this point of deficiency in service goes against the complainant.

Points no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.  The interim order as passed earlier thus stands vacated.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 3^rd day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                           Member